Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Newsome v. Clarke

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

January 21, 2016

Darris Altony Newsome, Petitioner,
v.
Harold Clarke, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          LIAM O'GRADY, District Judge.

         Darns Altony Newsome, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his convictions entered in the Circuit Court for the City of Hampton, Virginia. On August 20, 2015, respondent tiled a Rule 5 Answer accompanied by a Motion to Dismiss and supporting, brief. Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, 16. Petitioner was given the opportunity to file responsive materials. pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), and he has tiled a response. Dkt. No. 20. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, respondent's Motion to Dismiss must be granted, and the petition must be dismissed.

         I. Background

         Following a jury trial, petitioner was found guilty of two counts of rape in the Circuit Court for the City of Hampton on October 4, 2012. The victim in both cases was C.S-F., the daughter of petitioner's friend. The trial court imposed a 16-year[1] sentence on January 14, 2013. Case Nos. CR10M01010-04 & CR10M01010-06.

         Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which refused his petition on August 13, 2013. Rec. No. 0727-13-1. The Court of Appeals describes the underlying facts as Follows:

[The evidence proved that in 1988 the victim was eleven years old and appellant was the victim's mother's boyfriend. In 1988, the victim lived in the Cherry Acres neighborhood. The victim testified appellant initially kissed her and showed her his penis. The victim testified appellant entered her bedroom at night, rubbed her legs, and inserted his penis into her vagina. The victim testified appellant also inserted his penis into her vagina when she lived on Victoria Boulevard in 1991. The victim testified after the 1991 incident, she told her mother and a guidance counselor, and a police officer investigated, but her mother dropped the charge. The victim testified her mother told her to block the bedroom door with a stereo. The victim testified she also told her friend. T.S., about the sexual abuse. The victim testified Detective Randy Mayer contacted her in 2010. During cross-examination, appellant pointed out inconsistencies in the victim's testimony with statements she gave to the police in 2010 and her preliminary hearing testimony. According to the 2010 police report, the incidents occurred in 1990 and 1991 while she was living on Victoria Boulevard.
T.S. testified she knew the victim when they were in middle school and the victim told her that appellant was molesting her. Dr. Viola Vaughan-Eden, a specialist in the field of children's responsive behaviors to sexual abuse, testified it was normal for a child to delay reporting incidents of sexual abuse, there would be a catastrophic loss of self-esteem if a mother ignored a child's report of sexual abuse, and inconsistencies in details were normal when it was a number of years since the sexual abuse occurred, but an individual would remember that the sexual abuse occurred.

         Va. Ct. of App., Aug. 13, 2013 Order at 3-4. The Supreme Court of Virginia refused petitioner's subsequent petition for appeal on January 24, 2014. Rec. No. 131406.

         Subsequent to the direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia received petitioner's state habeas petition[2] on August 14, 2014, in which he claimed:

(1) The trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside the verdict.
(2) Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel:
(a) because counsel failed to investigate petitioner's claim that he was incarcerated at the time he was alleged to have raped the victim.
(b) because counsel operated under a prejudicial conflict of interest.
(c) because counsel failed to impeach the victim.
(3) Petitioner was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct:
(a) because prosecutor knowingly used the victim's ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.